Which factors predict the time spent answering queries to a drug information centre?

Abstract

Objective To develop a model based upon factors able to predict the time spent answering drug-related queries to Norwegian drug information centres (DICs). Setting and method Drug-related queries received at 5 DICs in Norway from March to May 2007 were randomly assigned to 20 employees until each of them had answered a minimum of five queries. The employees reported the number of drugs involved, the type of literature search performed, and whether the queries were considered judgmental or not, using a specifically developed scoring system. Main outcome measures The scores of these three factors were added together to define a workload score for each query. Workload and its individual factors were subsequently related to the measured time spent answering the queries by simple or multiple linear regression analyses. Results Ninety-six query/answer pairs were analyzed. Workload significantly predicted the time spent answering the queries (adjusted R2 = 0.22, P < 0.001). Literature search was the individual factor best predicting the time spent answering the queries (adjusted R2 = 0.17, P < 0.001), and this variable also contributed the most in the multiple regression analyses. Conclusion The most important workload factor predicting the time spent handling the queries in this study was the type of literature search that had to be performed. The categorisation of queries as judgmental or not, also affected the time spent answering the queries. The number of drugs involved did not significantly influence the time spent answering drug information queries.

A question–answer pair (QAP) database integrated with websites to answer complex questions submitted to the Regional Medicines Information and Pharmacovigilance Centres in Norway (RELIS): a descriptive study

“…In the present study, they were used to indicate complex questions. In an earlier study, we found that more than 60% of the queries were judgemental and most of the queries were patient-related 8. The sample in that study was much smaller compared with the present results, but the numbers corresponds well.…”

“…This is illustrated by the finding that the average number of references in the QAPs did not decrease from the first to the second period and advanced search strategies were still used in most cases. We recently performed a prospective study where the extent of literature search was the individual factor best predicting the time spent answering questions in RELIS 8. However, in RELIS, repeated questions are subjected to a new literature search if 3 months have passed since a previous answer was provided, and this was more likely to happen in the period 1995–2006.…”

“…Several questions answered by telephone were not documented in the database, and in 2003, the centres increased the number of employees mainly to handle adverse drug reaction reports due to new tasks in pharmacovigilance. In the prospective study, we measured the time spent to answer each of 96 questions 8. The mean time needed to provide an answer was 4.0 h, whereas the median time was 3.0 h (range 0.5–24 work hours).…”

Assessment of the Use and Status of New Drug Information Centers in a Developing Country, Ethiopia: The Case of Public University Hospital Drug Information Centers

“…Primary sources like journals were less frequently used. The reasons might be easiness of the queries to answer by tertiary references, unavailability, or rare availability of primary references and DI pharmacists' level of understanding of such materials [37]. Information from guidelines, Drugdex, leaflet, phone contact, protocols, store man, and monograph was also used to reply queries.…”

Quality assessment of structure and language elements of written responses given by seven Scandinavian drug information centres

“…The use of appropriate and credible sources along with critical literature evaluation skills [2] may be more important than exactly what type of source is used. The great workload of some centres may limit their ability to scrutinise the primary literature, as this kind of searching is time consuming [21, 22]. Especially for frequently asked queries where the evidence is comprehensive, e.g.…”